M/S Novo Nordisk India Pvt Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 641 Kant

                                1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                         PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                               AND

  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

                  I.T.A. NO.566 OF 2015
BETWEEN:

M/S. NOVO NORDISK INDIA PVT. LTD.,
( A PRIVATE COMPANY LIMITED BY SHARES
INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956)
HAVING ITS OFFICES AT: PLOT NO.32
47-50, EPIP AREA, WHITEFIELD
BANGALORE.
                                          .... APPELLANT
(BY MR. NAGESHWAR RAO, ADV.,)

AND:

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
CIRCLE-12(2), [PRESENTLY CIRCLE5(1)(1)]
BANGALORE.
                                          ... RESPONDENT
(BY MR. DILIP KUMAR, ADV.,
    MR. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,)
                               ---

     THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX
ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 08.05.2015 PASSED
IN IT(TP)A NO.122/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR
2009-10, ANNEXURE-A PRAYING TO:
     (i) ADMIT THE INSTANT APPEAL TO ANSWER THE
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW SET OUT IN PARA 36 ABOVE.
     (ii) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A
PASSED BY THE ITAT IN IT(TP)A NO.122/BANG/2014 FOR
ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, ANNEXURE-A, TO THE EXTENT
                               2



CHALLENGED   IN   PRESENT  APPEAL,   AND QUASH ANY
PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED OR CONTEMPLATED PURSUANT TO
SUCH DIRECTIONS ISSUED THEREUNDER & ETC.

     THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING,             THIS   DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                           JUDGMENT

Mr.Nageshwar Rao, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel for Mr.K.V.Aravind,

learned counsel for the revenue.

At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submits

that the assessee be permitted to withdraw the appeal with

liberty to contest the substantial question of law No.O in

subsequent years.

2. The aforesaid prayer is not opposed by the learned

counsel for the revenue.

3. In view of the aforesaid submission, the appeal is

dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE RV